Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 109 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

Nominal Index

Tirlaka Koteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 109

State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Lambu Ravi Teja, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 110

Veerapaneni Venkata Subhashini & Anr. v. Arikatla Venkata Rathnam & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111

Sri Durga Mahila Podupu Sangam Self Help Group v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 112

Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 113

Varampati Charan Kumar Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 114

Sri Sai Wines v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 115

Sree Teja and Tejasree Developers & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 116

Sri Venkateswara Institute of Technology v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 117

Tellamekala Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 118

Badeti Sridhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 119

A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 120

Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121

Sattaru Ram Mohan Rao v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122

Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124

Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125

Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 126

Kunisetty Hymavathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127

A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128

Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors., W.P. No. 12871 of 2025

Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 129

N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130

Vice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131

Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132

M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (along with connected appeals), 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133

APSRTC v. Smt. P. Jyothi Chittoor & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134

Gudala Lovalakshmi & Anr. v. Marthi Ramanababu @ Bujji & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135

Guduru Uma Maheswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136

Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137

S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138

Kum. C. Rohini Roy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 139

U. Kalpana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140

X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 141

Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 142

Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143

Mekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu v. Tamada Ratna Kumari, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144

M. Annapurna Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145

N. Anjinaiah @ Sakkara Anjineyulu (Died) by LRs v. N. Anumanna, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146

R. G. Maddilety v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147

K.G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148

V. Seenaiah v. Nellore Sudhakar & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149

M. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 150

T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151

Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152

Mathi Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. v. Pushadapu Sambasiva Rao & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 153

Sornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 154

P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 155

Garikina Satyarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 156

Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy & Ors. v. Challa Narasamma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 157

X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 158

Mogal Shuaibulla Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 159

Mantri Vasantha Kumari & Ors. v. Sri Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 160

Kalla Gopi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 161

Narapuram Shravan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 162

Vyasyaraju Maheswara Rao v. Boyina Govinda Rajulu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 163

Naresh Rai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 164

Kathi Chinna Venkatasubbaiah v. G. Venkata Subba Reddy, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 165

All Saints Christian Education Society & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Batch Matters), 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 166

Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Gubbala Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors. (and connected matter), 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 167

State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. D. Venugopal & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 168

G. Jayarami Reddy v. A.V.N. Muralimohan & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169

Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170

Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama Devi, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171

Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172

Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174

Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175

Ponna Roja v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 176

V. Chandrasekhar Naidu v. E. Muneendra & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 177

R. Thimmappa v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 178

Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 179

Siddineni Venkateswara Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 180

Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 181

Dunga Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182

Boddusatyavathi and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 183

Kadagala Srinivas Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 184

Smt. Sivakumar Meenakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 185

Dr Rayagada Santosh Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 186

Kasi Raju, S/o Kava Raju (Died) & 19 Others v. Arun Kumar & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 188

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 189

Savari Eswaramma v. Parigala Anjinamma & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 190

Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 191

Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 192

Chintapalli Satyavati v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 193

Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 194

Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195

P. Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196

In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 197

Rayala Kiran Kumar vs Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 198

Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 199

Tirumanuyam Srinivasulu Reddy @ Srunivasulu & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 200

Y. Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 201

Setty Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 202

Boya Hothuru Alliswamy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 203

Veligatla Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 204

Bethala Jaya Raju (Died) & Ors. v. Bethala Manikyal Rao, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 205

X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 206

G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 207

Yellaboina Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 208

Sri Venkateshwara Association v. The State of A.P. and others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 209

G. Papa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 210

Devineni Avinash & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 211

P. Vanajamma v. P. Mahitha Reddy & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 212

State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Rendla Subba Reddy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 213

M/s. Anjani Stone Crusher v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 214

The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (RWS) Division, Chittoor District & Others v. B. Narasimha Raju, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 215

N. Sri Rama Prasad and another v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 216

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vellanki Lakshmi & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 217

Smt. Thota Rajya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 218

Mandula Khasim Bi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 219

Balagam Sri Vijaya Bhargavi v. Regional Manager, Union Bank of India & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 220

Dr. U. Anudeep v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 221

Bommali Ashajyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 222

M. Rajasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 223

Metta Appana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 224

Chennupalli Seetha v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 225

Sobha and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Other, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

Judgments/ Orders

Sub-Registrars Aren't Liable For Revenue Loss If Relied On District Registrar's Verification:AP HC

Case Title: Tirlaka Koteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 109

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Courtcomprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and  Justice Ninala Jayasurya held that a Sub-Registrar cannot be held solely liable for revenue loss when he relied on verification certificates issued by a superior authority (District Registrar), when no action was taken against the superior authority and there was no proof of connivance.

Based On Delay Can't Quash Dept Enquiry Into Grave Charges If Employer Not Fully At Fault: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Lambu Ravi Teja

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 110

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya held that departmental proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to delay in their conclusion; delay must be weighed against the gravity of charges, and procedural time limits under G.O.Ms.No.679 are directory in nature, and not mandatory.

S.163A MV Act | Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation Even If Deceased Driver Was Negligent: AP High Court

Case Title: Veerapaneni Venkata Subhashini & Anr. v. Arikatla Venkata Rathnam & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the negligence of a deceased driver does not bar his legal heirs from claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 observing that the provision is a beneficial legislation under which proof of negligence is not relevant.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda allowed an appeal filed by the deceased driver's widow and minor son against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which had restricted the compensation to Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after holding that the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5 lakh by extending the benefit of Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Fair Price Shop Dealership Can't Be Cancelled Without Enquiry, Even If Dealer Is Temporary: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sri Durga Mahila Podupu Sangam Self Help Group v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 112

The Andhra Pradesh High Court revoked the termination of dealership of a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer based on malpractice complaints and after an MLA's recommendation, noting that enquiry and procedure under State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 was not followed. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the termination of its dealership and the entrustment of the shop to another permanent dealer without an enquiry or opportunity of hearing.

The Court held:

"For cancellation of authorization of a permanent dealer or even a temporary dealer, an enquiry has to be conducted as contemplated under law.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, and the petitioner shall continue to operate the subject Fair Price Shop in accordance with the orders of this Court dated 10.09.2024. However, it is made clear that the respondent authorities are not precluded from taking appropriate action, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law and the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further made clear that any such action shall be taken independently, without being influenced by any observations made in this order."

Right To Travel Abroad Can't Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is Social Or Celebratory In Nature: AP High Court

Case Title: Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 113

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused facing criminal proceedings cannot be denied permission to travel abroad merely because the purpose of the visit is social or celebratory rather than urgent or fundamental. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 113]

Setting aside the trial court's refusal, the Court held that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 extends to personal and family engagements, including social and celebratory occasions. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, who is facing prosecution in a CID case, challenging the trial court's refusal to return his passport and permit him to travel to the USA. 

The Court observed:

"In the instant case also, the petitioner intends to attend the housewarming ceremony of his first cousin in the USA. The request of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that the purpose of his visit abroad is purely social and celebratory in nature rather than urgent or fundamental. "

Job Aspirants Can't Insist On Retention Of Faculty Posts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds GO Reducing Posts At Sri Venkateswara University

Case Title: Varampati Charan Kumar Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 114

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Professors at Sri Venkateswara University–a state institution, have no vested right to insist upon the creation or retention of teaching posts to facilitate their participation in recruitment.

In doing so the court upheld the State's faculty rationalisation exercise in Sri Venkateswara University, the Court found no arbitrariness in the reduction of faculty positions and dismissed the challenge to the exercise.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao passed the order in a writ petition challenging the Government Orders implementing the faculty rationalisation exercise and the consequential recruitment notification issued by Sri Venkateswara University.

Vendors Can't Verify Every UPI Customer's Credentials; Their Bank Account Can't Be Frozen Over Buyer's Involvement In Cybercrime: AP High Court

Case Title: Sri Sai Wines v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 115

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that vendors accepting payments through UPI apps such as PhonePe and Google Pay cannot be expected to verify the credentials or criminal antecedents of every customer before completing a transaction, and their bank accounts cannot be frozen merely because a payer is subsequently found to be involved in a cybercrime. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order directing the State Bank of India to defreeze a wine trader's bank account and observed that UPI-based payments have become a routine mode of payment in petty businesses and that freezing a merchant's account without any material showing its involvement in the alleged offence is contrary to law.

The Court observed:

"No doubt, with regard to transactions in petty businesses, amounts are being transferred between vendors and vendees through PhonePe, and Google Pay, etc., by using UPI (Unified Payments Interface). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if any individual purchases goods and pays through UPI using the above said applications, the vendor cannot verify the credentials of such individual. Without verifying the credentials of the petitioner and without noticing his involvement in any criminal case registered against the said individual, the authorities cannot freeze the petitioner's account."

State's Officers Can't Use Administrative Powers To Compel Citizens To Abandon Pending Legal Proceedings: AP High Court

Case Title: Sree Teja and Tejasree Developers & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 116

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has strongly deprecated the conduct of a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) who made the removal of land from the prohibited properties list conditional upon the petitioners withdrawing their pending writ petition, holding that executive authorities cannot use administrative powers to compel citizens to abandon judicial proceedings. 

Allowing the petition, Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed:

"This Court takes serious exception to the conduct of the Revenue Divisional Officer during the pendency of the present writ petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer removed Acs. 4.03 cents of land from the prohibitory list, but made such removal condition upon the petitioners withdrawing the present writ petition. Such action on the part of a statutory authority is wholly impermissible. Access to justice and the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be subjected to conditions imposed by executive authorities. The State and its officers cannot use administrative powers as a means to compel citizens to abandon pending legal proceedings."

Difference In Nomenclature Can't Deprive College Of Admissions To AICTE-Approved AI Diploma Course: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sri Venkateswara Institute of Technology v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 117

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an educational institution cannot be deprived of approval to commence an Artificial Intelligence diploma course merely because of a difference in the nomenclature adopted by the regulatory authorities.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava allowed a writ petition filed by a private unaided technical institution challenging the refusal of the State Board of Technical Education and Training to include its AICTE-approved Artificial Intelligence diploma course in the counselling process for the 2026–27 academic year.

The Court observed:

"In view of the above, as the petitioner was granted approval/permission for commencement of “Artificial Intelligence”, by both the AICTE and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 3rd respondent while issuing the impugned proceedings ought to have shown the said course also as one of the permitted course. On the premise of difference in the nomenclature, the petitioner cannot be deprived of approval granted by AICTE and the Government for commencement of the course 'Artificial Intelligence'. In the light of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to include the course 'Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)' in the counselling and permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling process and admit students to the course "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)"."

Bonafide Purchaser Of Court-Auctioned Property Can't Be Prosecuted For Cheating Without Proof Of Conspiracy: AP High Court

Case Title: Tellamekala Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 118

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a bonafide purchaser of a property earlier sold in a court auction cannot be prosecuted for cheating and forgery in the absence of material showing that he conspired with the vendor or had knowledge of the earlier court auction. 

The order was passed by Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy while allowing a criminal petition filed by the purchaser seeking quashing of the criminal case against him.

The Court observed:

"As per the contents of the charge sheet, the court auction, in respect of the same schedule house property, though conducted on 25.10.2004, delivery of possession of the same was made on 05.08.2016 i.e. subsequent to Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.6079/2015, dated 30.09.2015 which was executed between the petitioner/A2 and respondent No.3/A1. Therefore, it can be inferred that the respondent No.3/A1 is having knowledge that the schedule house property was once auctioned in the Court, and knowing fully well that the said house property was got attached and it is under litigation, sold the same to the petitioner/A2 under Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015.However, merely, because respondent No.3/A1 is having knowledge, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner/A2 is also well aware of the said fact and conspiracy cannot be attributed to the petitioner/A2 that he conspired together with respondent No.3/A1...".

Appeal Against Conviction Can't Be Dismissed Merely Because Party Or Counsel Is Absent, Must Be Adjudicated On Merits: AP High Court

Case Title: Badeti Sridhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 119

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the absence of the appellant or his counsel is not a ground to dismiss a criminal appeal against conviction for non-prosecution, observing that the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits after examining the record.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a convict in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, setting aside the appellate court's order dismissing his criminal appeal for non-prosecution.

Examining the impugned order, the High Court found that its preamble itself recorded the presence of the petitioner's counsel, making the subsequent observation that the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution self-contradictory and legally unsustainable. It held that “once the appearance of counsel had been acknowledged, the appeal could not be treated as unrepresented”.

Advocates Can't Be Sued For 'Deficiency' In Service Under Consumer Protection Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 120

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 observing that the services of an advocate are rendered under a contract of personal service, which stands excluded from the definition of "service" under the Act. 

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders of the District, State and National Consumer Commissions dismissing a consumer complaint against an advocate.

The Bench noted:

"The law is well settled that an Advocate/lawyer in connection with the service rendered by him in legal side is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act."

Previous Bail Orders Relevant Material For 'Subjective Satisfaction' Of Preventive Detention: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after finding that the detaining authority failed to consider multiple bail orders granted to the detenu, holding that bail orders are vital material and their non-consideration vitiates the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. 

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta while allowing a writ petition filed by the detenu's wife challenging his preventive detention, which had been based on seven criminal cases registered under Section 7(B) read with Sections 8(A) or 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

AP High Court Directs University To Award Compensatory Marks To MBBS Student Deprived Due To Repetition Of Questions

Case Title: Sattaru Ram Mohan Rao v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122

Allowing the plea of a final-year MBBS student, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences to award her one additional mark after finding that the repetition of a multiple-choice question in the Ophthalmology examination had unfairly deprived her of an opportunity to answer a different question.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava was hearing a writ petition filed by a final-year MBBS student seeking a direction to the University to award one compensatory mark in the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology examination, declare her as "passed" in the subject and permit her to commence her Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI).

The Court observed that the petitioner could not be placed at a disadvantage for a mistake committed by the University.

Partition Of Joint Family Property Not 'Transfer' Under Senior Citizens Act, Can't Be Cancelled For Failure To Maintain Parents: AP High Court

Case Title: Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that partition of a joint family property does not amount to "transfer of property" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and hence such a registered partition deed cannot be cancelled for failure to maintain senior citizen parents, by invoking Section 23 of the Act.

In doing so the court held that while a transfer contemplates passing of an interest in property from one person to another, a partition merely separates rights that already existed; thus the two cannot be equated.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda allowed a writ petition filed by a son and his wife challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, which had directed cancellation of a registered partition deed executed between the son and his mother.

Party Can't Invoke Article 226 Jurisdiction After Withdrawing Previous Writ Without Seeking Liberty To File Afresh: AP High Court

Case Title: M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party which withdraws a writ petition without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition cannot subsequently invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction again on the same cause of action, observing that the remedy under Article 226 is deemed to have been abandoned.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam disposed of a second writ petition challenging the deduction of seigniorage charges (positive return, or carry, on issued notes and coins) from the running account (RA) bills of a contractor engaged by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL).

The Court held that the earlier writ petition on the same cause of action had been withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition. 

AP High Court Upholds Food Corporation Of India's Direction To Rice Millers To Replace Fortified Stocks Which Failed Mandatory Quality Test

Case Title: Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the action of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other authorities directing rice millers to replace fortified rice stocks that failed mandatory quality tests, holding that the authorities acted in accordance with the SOPs governing the Fortified Rice Scheme and that no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice was made out. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by rice millers challenging directions to replace fortified rice stocks supplied during the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2022-23.

MBBS Student Can't Be Disqualified For Break Taken Due To Genuine Financial Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 126

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which an MBBS student discontinues studies for genuine reasons, like financial hardship or health issues, cannot be counted while computing the 4-year limit prescribed for clearing the First Professional exam of the course under Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2019 (GMER). 

In doing so, the Court allowed an MBBS student to continue her course after holding that a literal interpretation of the Regulations would irrationally disqualify students whose temporary break has no bearing on their academic ability or competence.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the Regulations must be applied in line with their object. The Court observed:

"In the opinion of this Court, the break period in such genuine cases should not be counted for calculating four (04) years period as the break period has nothing to do with the ability or the competency of the student and the purport of the Regulations. After all, no student in normal circumstances would take a break from M.B.B.S., Course after securing admission going through gruelling preparation for NEET-UG entrance examination.If the Regulations referred to supra are to be understood in literal sense, that would lead to disqualification of students who have taken a break from education under compelling reasons and such an approach would make the Regulations irrational. Whenever, a Regulation or a statute is being understood, irrationality has to be avoided and rationality has to be read in, to make it constitutionally sane."

AP High Court Questions 50-Year Delay In Releasing Land Acquisition Compensation, Says State's Role Not Limited To Passing Award

Case Title: Kunisetty Hymavathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to pay land acquisition compensation awarded in 1976, along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the award until payment, holding that failure to ensure payment of compensation after taking possession of land violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. 

In doing so, the Court held that once compensation is determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State has a duty to ensure that it is paid to the landowner without requiring any representation or request. Merely keeping the amount in revenue deposits does not absolve the State of its constitutional obligation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan disposed of a writ petition filed by a landowner whose land had been acquired in 1976 for distribution of house sites to members of the Vaddera community for government purposes.

Order Rejecting Interim Relief Must Contain Reasons; One-Line, Non-Speaking Orders Unsustainable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a judicial order rejecting interim relief cannot be sustained if it does not record any reasons, observing that "reasons are the back bone of every order" and that a one-line, non-speaking order violates settled principles of law.

Accordingly, the Court quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, rejecting an employee's plea for interim relief and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application in accordance with law.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed the writ petition challenging the CAT's order rejecting interim relief passed under Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

AP High Court Directs Release Of PwD Medical Student's Certificate, Orders Inquiry Into Alleged Discrimination By Professor

Case Title: Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 12871 of 2025

Granting interim relief to an M.S. General Surgery student with 78% locomotor disability, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Andhra Medical College to issue provisional course completion certificate and release the original academic documents to enable him to participate in the NEET Super Specialty counselling, earlier denied over lack of attendance. 

While doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad also suo motu impleaded the concerned Professor of General Surgery, who allegedly harassed the petitioner on account of his disability, by repeatedly seeking medical fitness examinations and pressuring him to discontinue the course.

Can't Conduct Detailed Inquiry Into Child's Welfare In Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction, Remedy Lies Under Guardians & Wards Act: AP High Court

Case Title: Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 129

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus writ is ordinarily not maintainable in child custody disputes where a detailed inquiry into the welfare of the minor is required, particularly when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are already pending. 

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his two minor daughters, who were residing with their maternal grandmother following the death of their mother under suspicious circumstances.

Estates Authority Can't Adjudicate Proceedings Involving Deceased Party Without Legal Heirs Being Brought On Record: AP High Court

Case Title: N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that estates authority cannot continue and decide proceedings against deceased persons without their legal representatives being first brought on record, and that such proceedings are void and a nullity in law. 

A single judge bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam allowed a writ petition challenging an order passed under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.

Explaining why the impugned order was legally unsustainable, the Court held:

"Unless the applications filed for bringing the legal representatives on record are first adjudicated, the authority could not have proceeded to decide the main proceedings. The very continuation of the proceedings against deceased persons, without substitution of their legal representatives, is contrary to the settled procedure known to law.

The very same authority cannot assume the role of an appellate authority and sit in appeal over its own decision. Such an exercise would be in flagrant violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice embodied in the maxim 'Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa', and the order would be liable to be quashed as being void ab initio."

Passenger's Failure To Take Precaution Subordinate To Public Bus Operator's Duty Of Care: AP High Court Enhances Accident Compensation

Case Title: Vice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that a public transport operator's duty of care outweighs a passenger's failure to exercise caution. 

It thus enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a man who died after being run over by an APSRTC bus— from Rs. 3.85 lakh to Rs. 8.40 lakh. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma dismissed APSRTC's appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and allowed the claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Party Can't Be Granted Interim Relief Merely Because Opposing Counsel Failed To Answer Court's Query: AP High Court

Case Title: Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot succeed on the weakness of the opposite party's case and must stand on the strength of its own case, observing that interim relief cannot be granted merely because the opposite party's counsel failed to answer a legal query posed by the Court. 

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed the appeal challenging the interim order passed in a writ petition arising under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

The Court observed:

"It would not be out of place to mention the settled principle of law that the plaintiff in a suit should not succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case. He has to stand on his own legs. Similarly, unless a case for grant of interim order was made out, the interim order could not be passed only on the failure of the respondents' counsel to state the grounds on which Writ of Certiorari could be issued. The respondents had not challenged the orders. It was for the writ petitioner to prima facie satisfy the grounds for issuance of a writ of Certiorari and the grounds involved in the writ petition and thereby make out a case for the grant of interim relief.

There is also no consideration of the case of the writ petitioners or of the respondents, even prima facie."

Can't Challenge Notices Issued To Predecessor After Litigating For Decades: AP High Court Dismisses McDowell's Appeal With ₹50K Cost

Case Title: M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (along with connected appeals)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a batch of five writ appeals, holding that a company which had litigated the same land dispute for decades without questioning the validity of statutory notices could not, after suffering adverse decisions, seek to reopen the matter by contending that the notices had been issued to its predecessor company following amalgamation. 

Upholding a common order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 in each appeal

Observing that the plea regarding notices being issued to the company's predecessor was nothing but a belated attempt to prolong the litigation, the Court remarked:

"In our considered opinion, it is not open to appellant-petitioner to now subsequently raise question of issuance of notice to an incorrect entity while it is a matter of record that present petitioner has been pursuing this litigation right from beginning. Such a plea admittedly was never raised by petitioner, at any earlier point of time.

A totally unjustified plea regarding notice not being issued to the correct entity was then raised as a last-ditch effort, despite the petitioner itself having actively pursued earlier litigation, without ever raising such a plea. Admittedly, petitioner was aware of each proceeding and was pursuing it in its own capacity. Conduct of appellant/writ petitioner clearly amounts to abuse of process of law, which calls for imposition of cost."

Motor Accident Appeal Can Be Withdrawn; Claimants Can't Seek Enhancement Of Compensation Without Cross-Appeal: AP High Court

Case Title: APSRTC v. Smt. P. Jyothi Chittoor & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while an appellant is ordinarily entitled to unconditionally withdraw an appeal under the CPC in a motor accident case, respondent party cannot insist that the appellate court decide the matter on merits in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objections.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma permitted APSRTC to withdraw its appeal challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award, but directed it to pay costs of Rs.5,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claimants' appearance before the High Court till deposit.

Observing that respondents cannot compel adjudication on merits when they themselves have not challenged the award, the Court held:

"Now, when the appellant is not pressing the appeal and is not insisting upon disposal on merits, the respondents cannot insist for disposal or dismissal of the appeal on merits.

What prevented the respondents from filing cross-objections or a crossappeal is not known. In the absence of cross-objections or cross appeal, the submission that in the event of enhancing the compensation, the respondent(s) will pay Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation is not sounding fair or logical."

Fresh DNA Test Can't Be Denied Over Earlier Report Being Unchallenged, Child's Right To Recognition Of Paternity Prevails: AP High Court

Case Title: Gudala Lovalakshmi & Anr. v. Marthi Ramanababu @ Bujji & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a fresh DNA test may be directed in exceptional circumstances where a child's right to maintenance and determination of paternity is directly in issue, notwithstanding an earlier DNA report obtained during criminal proceedings.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed:

"The issue involved is not merely a dispute between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1. The rights of Petitioner No.2, a child claiming maintenance and recognition of paternity, are directly implicated. Since a new scientific test would cause only minor inconvenience, it is better to allow an independent examination so that the dispute can be settled finally and conclusively. A fresh DNA examination conducted by a reputed Central Forensic Laboratory under the supervision of the trial Court would enhance confidence in the process and eliminate any lingering doubts entertained by either side. If the earlier report is indeed correct, the fresh examination would only reaffirm the same. Conversely, if any discrepancy exists, the Court would be equipped with reliable scientific evidence to render a just decision. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to Respondent No.1 by directing such examination. Furthermore, Respondent No.1 did not choose to submit his objections in this matter.”

AP High Court Quashes FIR Against Hotel Employee In ₹50.93 Lakh Misappropriation Case, Finds No Prima Case Or Specific Role

Case Title: Guduru Uma Maheswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a hotel employee accused in a Rs. 50.93 lakh misappropriation case, holding that in the absence of any specific allegation or prima facie material connecting him with the alleged offences making him face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the statements of material witnesses and the charge sheet did not attribute any specific role to the petitioner, who was working as a hotel boy. The Court held:

"Neither the statements of the material witnesses nor the charge sheet does reveal any specific overt-act as against the petitioner herein, nor any prima facie material is collected against him during the course of investigation, connecting him to the offences alleged.

All the allegations are directed as against A.1 to A.4. Except a vague and bald averment in the statement of L.W.4-K.Siva Sankar Reddy, there is no specific role attributed as against the petitioner. Basing on the said bald averment, the petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet. 

On aperusal of the statements of the witnesses goes to show that the General Manager of the said hotel and others have collected money. But, nowhere, it is alleged that the petitioner collected the money from the customers. In the absence of any specific accusations as against the petitioner, it is nothing but abuse of process of law in making him to face the ordeal of trail."

Registered Gift Deed Can't Be Unilaterally Revoked Before Sub-Registrar Without Approaching Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a registered gift deed, once accepted by the donee, cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor through a revocation deed executed before the Sub-Registrar, and that such revocation deeds are void unless the gift is first set aside by a competent civil court.

In doing so, the court held that there is no presumption that property is joint family property merely because the parties constitute a Hindu joint family, and the burden lies on the person asserting it to prove otherwise.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed a first appeal challenging the dismissal of a partition suit filed by a son claiming that the suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties and that revocation deeds executed by his father had validly cancelled earlier gift deeds.

Contempt Plea Must Be Filed Within 1-Year Of Alleged Violation; Party Can't Claim 'Continuing Wrong' To Circumvent Limitation: AP High Court

Case Title: S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138

Holding that a contempt petition must ordinarily be filed within one year from the date of the alleged contempt, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a contempt case as barred by limitation, rejecting the petitioner's plea that the non-compliance of the earlier court order constituted a continuing wrong. 

The Court observed that where a court order prescribes a specific time for compliance, limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 begins to run from the expiry of that period, and cannot be indefinitely extended merely by describing the breach as a continuing wrong.

Before a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta was a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an earlier High Court order directing the respondents to implement a Tribunal's order within three months. 

'At Best Deficiency In Service': AP High Court Quashes Cheating FIR Over Supply Of Inferior Quality Oxygen Plant During Covid-19 Pandemic

Case Title: Kum. C. Rohini Roy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 139

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed cheating FIR against the Chief Executive Officer of a company accused of supplying inferior and substandard quality of oxygen plant during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the allegation at best amounts to deficiency in service and would not attract criminal offences.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy was a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of a charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) IPC.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds 1-Year Bar On Officer's Promotion After Censure, Says Punishment Without Consequence Would Normalize Wrongdoing

Case Title: U. Kalpana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government servant awarded minor penalty of censure can be denied promotion for one year under G.O.Ms.No.53, as the Government Order has the force of law and validly supplements the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Emphasising the need for consequences to flow from disciplinary penalties, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed:

“if the contention of the learned senior counsel is to be accepted, “censure” imposed on an established misconduct of an employee literally has no consequence Such an approach would make the penalty of “censure” a dead provision in the rules. The discipline among the employees is instilled in fear of consequence of any act of misconduct and it would be unfair to treat an employee censured, on par with an employee with clean record for the purpose of promotion, it would be unfair. If a punishment has no consequence, it erodes deterrence and leads to the normalisation of wrongdoing.

The Respondents shall consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of HWO Grade-I after expiry of the one year period from the date imposition of penalty of censure as prescribed 19 in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 04.02.1997 taking into account her seniority and in accordance with the Rules.”

Family Courts Can't Accept Examination-In-Chief Evidence Via Affidavit In Maintenance Case, Violates S.126(2) CrPC Mandate: AP High Court

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 141

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Family Courts cannot examination-in-chief evidence in the form of affidavit in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS), as such procedure is contrary to mandatory requirement under S.126(2) CrPC which requires presence of person from whom maintenance is sought.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed:

"The first limb of the challenge relates to the manner in which evidence was received by the Trial Court. The answer to this issue must necessarily be gathered from the language employed in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C(Section 145 (2) of BNSS). The provision stipulates that "all evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader." 

The legislature has consciously employed the expression "shall", thereby making the requirement mandatory in nature. The provision does not contemplate evidence being tendered by way of affidavits nor does it contain any enabling provision authorising the Court to substitute oral chief-examination with evidence affidavit.”

Amendment To Correct Party Name, Property Value In Partition Suit Permissible After Trial Starts If Nature Of Suit Unchanged: AP High Court

Case Title: Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 142

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an amendment application seeking to correct the plaintiff's name and the extent of a property in a partition suit cannot be refused merely because it is sought after commencement of trial, so long as it does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the opposite party.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that, amending the name of the plaintiff in the cause title and amending the schedule in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (A Schedule property) as Ac.0.03 cents in place of 1100 Sq.yards or Sq.mtrs, does not change the nature of the suit and ultimately the suit will be for partition only. The court below, without observing the same, has erroneously dismissed the application, as such, the same has to be set aside. Therefore, this court is inclined to allow the revision."

Can't Interfere With Tenancy Proceedings Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction When Statutory Remedy Available: AP High Court

Case Title: Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143

The Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with pending tenancy proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that its supervisory jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked where an effective alternative remedy exists.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"The Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint, even though a specific provision for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was available to the parties to be taken recourse to. 

In the grab of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to engulf the specific statutory remedy or provision in law and thus, become a supervisor over the court below or the tribunal, as the case may be. It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline and to insist that the aggrieved party should take recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law, especially where remedy available in the CPC for 11 the cases falling under category/other law also, where such specific statutory remedy is available.”

Court Must Identify Specific Retirement Benefit Before Ordering Attachment Under S.60 CPC; Gratuity, PF Can't Be Attached: AP High Court

Case Title: Mekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu v. Tamada Ratna Kumari

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where attachment of a retired employee's retirement benefits is sought in execution proceedings, the executing court must first identify the particular head of retirement benefits sought to be attached, as benefits such as gratuity and provident fund are exempt from attachment under Section 60 CPC.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"A bare reading of the above provisions would indicate that stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer, or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government or the State Government cannot be attached in execution of a sale. The Apex Court has also held that pension and gratuity amounts, even it converted into fixed deposits, cannot be attached for the satisfaction of a court decree, reinforcing the need to identify them as such."

AP High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Husband's Alleged Second Wife, Says She's Not 'Relative' Under S.498A IPC

Case Title: M. Annapurna Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed cruelty FIR agaist a woman accused of being the second wife of a married man, after noting that she would not fall under the category of "relative" to invoke Section 498A IPC.

For context FIR was lodged under Section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman; Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was also invoke which criminalizes giving, taking and demanding dowry.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy held that the complainant and accused No.1 continued to reside together despite their marital disputes and that no divorce proceedings had been initiated. It observed that the complainant had produced no proof of the alleged second marriage and further remarked that, if such a marriage had in fact taken place, the petitioner herself could be an aggrieved person under Section 494 IPC, having allegedly been deceived into marrying a man with a living spouse.

AP High Court Condones 1024-Day Delay To Bring Legal Heirs On Record, Says Party Not Expected To Keep Checking Status Of Pending Case

Case Title: N. Anjinaiah @ Sakkara Anjineyulu (Died) by LRs v. N. Anumanna

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146

The Andhra Pradesh High Court condoned delay of 1024 days in filing an application to bring the legal heirs of a deceased appellant on record, reiterating that in a pending appeal a party is not expected to keep visiting the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position of the case.

Allowing the Civil Revision Petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal".

'Can't Hold Two Posts Together': AP High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Fair Price Shop Dealer's Authorization After Election As Sarpanch

Case Title: R. G. Maddilety v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the cancellation of a fair price shop dealer's authorization after he was elected as a Sarpanch, holding that under the State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, a person cannot simultaneously hold the post of Fair Price Shop dealer and a public office such as Sarpanch. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the cancellation of his authorization, which had been affirmed by the appellate authority.

The Court held:

"Two charges have been leveled, one with regard to variation in the stock and the other charge is that the inspecting team noticed that the dealer is acting as a Sarpanch, thereby contravening the Clause XII of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 and also the conditions of the authorization Control Order 2018. The stand taken by the petitioner that the authorities are very much aware that the petitioner is a dealer and allowed him to submit his nominations but that cannot be a ground to justify the action of the petitioner. Once he has elected as Sarpanch, either he has to resign the dealership or he has to resign the Sarpanch post."

State Can't Pass Adverse Order Directing Removal Of Construction Without Issuing 'Prior' Show Cause Notice: AP High Court

Case Title: K.G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that authorities cannot issue a notice directing removal of constructions without first issuing a show cause notice and affording the affected person an opportunity of hearing. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as 'audi alteram partem' rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle.

It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play."

Knowledge Of Court Order Enough To Establish Contempt Even Without Formal Service To Party: AP High Court

Case Title: V. Seenaiah v. Nellore Sudhakar & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that formal service of a court order is not a prerequisite for holding a person guilty of civil contempt if it is established that the person had knowledge of the order and willfully disobeyed it. 

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

"So, mere knowledge of the Order is sufficient. Serving the copy of the Order is not an essential requirement to hold guilty of contempt, when despite knowledge there is willful disobedience of the Court Order. Knowledge of the Order to the appellant is established in view of the discussion made above.We are satisfied on the second essential ingredient as well that there was willful and deliberate violation of the Court‟s Order. The appellant did not wait for two weeks to enable the petitioners to file the explanation and before expiry of that period demolished the construction or part thereof on 19.03.2018 itself."

Fair Price Shop Dealer Must Be Allowed To Cross-Examine Complainants Before Licence Cancellation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 150

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the termination of a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer, holding that the dealer was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainants and was not furnished with the material relied upon.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the order terminating his dealership.

The Court held:

"It is a settled principle of law that when an adverse order is sought to be passed based on statements of third parties, the affected party must be afforded an opportunity to test the veracity of such statements by way of cross-examination. Denial of such an opportunity amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. 

Further, this Court also finds that the impugned order does not reflect proper consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The order appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner, without recording independent findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and without demonstrating due application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem"

S.482 BNSS | Accused Need Not Surrender Before Jurisdictional Magistrate To Avail Anticipatory Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS does not require an accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate as a condition for availing anticipatory bail.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed:

"Importantly, Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482 of the BNSS does not contemplate a requirement that the Petitioner must surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and only upon such surrender be released on bail.

An order of anticipatory bail must strictly conform to the procedure laid down under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.,‟ / Section 482 of the BNSS‟, and not otherwise."

Can POCSO Court Frame Charges Without Hearing Accused On Discharge? Andhra Pradesh High Court Answers

Case Title: Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a POCSO Special Court cannot frame charges without first affording the accused an effective opportunity of hearing on the question of discharge as contemplated under Sections 250 and 251 BNSS.

The Court held:

"On a careful reading of the impugned order dated 08.05.2026, it can be gleaned that the impugned order is neither an order of dismissal of the discharge petition nor an order of discharging the Petitioners, but it is an order of framing charges without mentioning in the docket proceedings that before the charges are framed, the accused were heard about framing of the charges. However, the end of result of the impugned order is no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioners by way of hearing on the charges.

As a result, right of the accused is deprived of. Afortiori, the learned Trial Court has also not inquired from the Petitioners whether they intend to file a discharge petition as per their entitlement under Section 250 of 'the BNSS.,' though not within a period of sixty days in the view of the legislative mandate prescribed in Section 35 of 'the POSCO Act'."

O.7 R.11 CPC | Plaint Can Only Be Rejected Based On Its Own Averments, Defendant's Stand Immaterial: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Mathi Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. v. Pushadapu Sambasiva Rao & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 153

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of its averments, it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint in a partition suit.

The Court held:

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power available to the Court at the threshold, and therefore, the Court, while considering the said application, shall go by the averments in the plaint alone. The claim of the plaintiff concerning knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action needs to be accepted as correct. The stand of the defendant in the written statement is wholly immaterial. 

If the plaint ex facie does not disclose a cause of action, or a plain reading of the plaint reveals that the relief is barred by limitation, then only the plaint can be rejected. When the foundation of facts as pleaded attracts the bar of limitation, no trial is warranted. Even a clear drafting of the plaint, in certain circumstances, warrants rejection"

S. 75(4) Registration Act | Registrar Can Call For Documents To Verify Title But Can't Cancel Sale Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 154

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while a Registrar is empowered to conduct an enquiry under Section 75(4) of the Registration Act by issuing notice to parties to produce documents establishing their title, such power does not extend to cancelling a registered sale deed. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Sujatha observed:

"Admittedly, in the present case, though Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 states that notice is issued only with regard to causing production of the documentary evidence to prove the title, but not to proceed to cancel the sale deed. However, a complaint has been lodged by the Assistant General Manager, SAR, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam to the extent of cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed executed by the Petitioner on 29.08.2016, which admittedly is not within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. 

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Respondent No.2 can conduct an enquiry under Section 75 (4) of the Registration Act by issuing notice to the Petitioner directing him to appear with all relevant documentary evidence to prove the title, but cannot further proceed to cancel the sale deed."

Place Of Worship Can't Be Constructed Without Collector's Prior Approval And Proof Of Title: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (2026) 155

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a place of worship cannot be cannot constructed without prior permission by the district collector and other statutory land approvals establishing proof of title.

In doing so the court restrained further construction of a CSI Church at Maanchala Village, Mantralayam Mandal, holding that it did not comply with statutory requirements under AP Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules and AP Panchayat Raj Act.

Disposing of a writ petition challenging the construction of the place of worship, the Court held that statutory approvals cannot be bypassed merely because an earlier place of worship allegedly existed at the site.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao disposed of the writ petition with directions restraining further construction until the statutory requirements are fulfilled.

Unauthorized Layout Can't Be Ground To Deny Electricity Connection To Property Owner, Even Encroacher Entitled To Supply: AP High Court

Case Title: Garikina Satyarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 156

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere declaration of a layout as unauthorized cannot be a ground to deny an electricity service connection to a person having valid title and possession over the property.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda observed:

"As per the General Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply, even an encroacher or rightful possessor is entitled for electricity service connection. But in the instant case, the petitioner is having valid title as well as possession of the subject plot wherein he got constructed a house. Mere declaration of the subject layout as unauthorized layout cannot invalidating the claim of the petitioner to have an electricity service connection in view of the General Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply."

Fingerprint Identification Is 'Exact Science', Thumb Impression Expert's Opinion More Relevant Than Handwriting Expert's: AP High Court

Case Title: Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy & Ors. v. Challa Narasamma & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 157

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the opinion of an expert in relation to thumb impressions is more relevant than the opinion of an expert in relation to handwriting, since the science of identifying thumb impressions is an exact science that does not admit of any mistake or doubt.

In doing so, the Court set aside a trial court order refusing to refer a disputed agreement of sale for expert examination of thumb impressions in a suit for specific performance.

Allowing two Civil Revision Petitions, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that where the execution of a document is disputed, comparison of thumb impressions would assist the trial court in effectively adjudicating the dispute.

Foisting False Criminal Cases Against Husband Which End In Acquittal Constitutes Mental Cruelty: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: X v. Y 

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 158

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the filing of false criminal cases by a spouse, which ultimately end in acquittal, constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for dissolution of marriage. 

The Court upheld the decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband, observing that while merely filing a criminal complaint does not amount to cruelty, compelling a spouse to undergo criminal prosecution on false allegations culminating in acquittal does.

A Division Bench of Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice G. Ramakrishna Prasad observed:

"The instances cited by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole in the order impugned herein, in no uncertain terms establish that the Appellant acted in a cruel manner and harassed her husband by foisting false cases, which ended in acquittal.In this view of the matter, this Court confirms the findings of the 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole in Divorce Original Petition No.6 of 2004 dated 26.06.2007 to the effect that the actions and conduct of the Appellant-wife towards her husband-Respondent No.1 herein constitutes Mental Cruelty. This Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere in the present Appeal."

Partner Can't Invoke Habeas Corpus To Claim Right To Live-In Relationship With Adult Woman Willingly Living With Parents: AP High Court

Case Title: Mogal Shuaibulla Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 159

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable at the instance of a person claiming to be in a relationship with a major woman living with her parents, unless there is prima facie material to show that she is under illegal detention. 

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the writ petition.

The Court observed:

"The petitioner and the alleged detenue might have lived or living in a relationship and might have their intentions to marry in future but merely based thereon, there cannot be a right to maintain the Habeas Corpus unlessthe material placed before the Court is such that the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an illegal detention.We are not oblivious of the law on locus standi to maintain a writ of Habeas Corpus but when it comes to seeking production or release of a girl living with the parents, and the writ petition is by a person claiming to be a boy friend, living in 'live in relationship' as alleged the very basic ingredient for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus deserves to be carefully and strictly scrutinized."

Trial Courts Must Mark Documents Relied On Before Granting Interim Injunction: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Mantri Vasantha Kumari & Ors. v. Sri Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 160

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that trial courts deciding applications for temporary injunction must consider and mark the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and cannot grant injunctions without recording findings based on such material.

A Division Bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Balaji Medamalli observed:

"Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned judge has failed to consider the documentary evidence placed on record and has not recorded any specific finding referring to the relevant documents with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge also erred in not giving marking to the documents relied upon, though they were referred to. Apart from this, the learned Judge had entertained a single application seeking multiple reliefs, which is contrary to Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice."

Recovery Of Stolen Property Alone Can't Sustain Murder Conviction, Attracts Only Section 411 IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Kalla Gopi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 161

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere recovery of stolen property from an accused is not enough to convict them for murder, robbery, or lurking house trespass based only on circumstantial evidence.

Allowing four criminal appeals filed by the four convicted accused in part, the Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunaranjan set aside their convictions under Sections 302(murder), 460(House-trespass), 397(Robbery or dacoity), 352(assault or using criminal force without grave provocation) read with Section 34(common intention), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC. 

Instead, it convicted them under Section 411 IPC. Since the appellants had already spent more than three years in prison, the Court directed that they be released immediately if they were not required in any other case.

AP High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Murder Convicts, Says 'Rarest Of Rare' Test Not Met If Accused Amenable To Reform

Case Title: Narapuram Shravan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 162

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that capital punishment cannot be imposed unless the case falls within the "rarest of rare" category and the court is satisfied that the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the accused is unquestionably foreclosed.

Commuting the death sentence awarded to two convicts to rigorous imprisonment for life without remission, the Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception. It further acquitted a third accused after finding that no specific overt act had been attributed to her by the prosecution.

Court Can't Proceed Ex-Parte Against Defendant For Not Filing Written Statement After Lawyer Appears And Files Vakalatnama: AP High Court

Case Title: Vyasyaraju Maheswara Rao v. Boyina Govinda Rajulu & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 163

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once a defendant has entered appearance through an advocate by filing a vakalat, the trial court cannot set the defendant ex parte merely because the written statement was not filed within the stipulated time.

Instead, the proper course is to forfeit the defendant's right to file the written statement and proceed with the suit in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Disposing of a civil revision petition, Justice Subba Reddy Satti declined to interfere with the trial court's order setting aside the ex parte order against the first defendant. However, the Court directed the defendant to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the revision petitioner for the delay. 

Factory Safety Violations Covered Under Factories Act Can't Attract Parallel Prosecution Under S.304-A IPC: AP High Court

Case Title: Naresh Rai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 164

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when the allegations against factory officials relate entirely to violation of safety measures governed by the Factories Act, 1948, they cannot simultaneously be prosecuted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for the same incident.

Allowing a criminal petition filed by the factory Supervisor (A1) and Occupier (A2), a Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy quashed the criminal proceedings pending against them for the offence under Section 304-A IPC which penalizes causing death by a rash or negligent act.

S.152 CPC | Court Can Direct Correction Of Wrong Survey Number In Decree If Identity Of Property Is Undisputed: AP High Court

Case Title: Kathi Chinna Venkatasubbaiah v. G. Venkata Subba Reddy

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 165

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an incorrect survey number has been mentioned due to an accidental slip, the Court can exercise its power under Section 152 CPC to correct the mistake even after the decree is passed, provided there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property.

Refusing to interfere with the trial court's order, Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the correction of the survey number in a decree for specific performance under Section 152 CPC.

Explaining the legal position, the Court observed:

"The scope of Section 152 CPC vis-à-vis the correction of survey number etc., after the decree was considered nearly a century back, and it was held that the Court had jurisdiction. It was held that Section 152 CPC could apply even to correct the mistakes or errors committed in the plaint, and even in a document on the foot of which the suit was filed.

Thus, a conspectus of the authorities referred to supra, an accidental slip in the description of the property, the mis-description which was not even noticed by the parties throughout the whole course of the proceedings; no dispute regarding the identity of the property, the court can exercise its inherent power of making such corrections as are necessary for the ends of justice, even after the decree is passed in the interests of justice."

AP High Court Upholds Disaffiliation Of Law College Over Infrastructure Deficiencies, Grants Relief To Existing Students

Case Title: All Saints Christian Education Society & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Batch Matters)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 166

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a law college which does not satisfy minimum infrastructural requirements prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and University Grants Commission (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009 cannot claim continuation of affiliation merely because it had been functioning for several years. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay upheld the disaffiliation of Veeravalli College of Law by Adikavi Nannaya University, finding that the college failed to meet the mandatory requirements relating to land, built-up area, classrooms, library and other academic infrastructure. 

The Court observed:

"The shortfall of academic space and other infrastructural requirements in the Petitioner-College is an undisputed fact in the light of above. The shortfall is in a way admitted as per the Petitioners explanation dated 22.8.2024 wherein it was mentioned that the College is run on a shift system, i.e holding classes for 3 Yrs., LLB in the morning section and holding classes for 5 Yrs LLB & LLM in the afternoon session. This running of the College on a shift system is not recognised under the regulations referred to above.

In view of the shortfall in the infrastructural requirements as per the Regulations referred to above, this Court has no option but to uphold the impugned orders in principle."

AP High Court Orders ACB Probe Into Alleged Fraud On Court In Land Dispute Case, Questions Lawyers' Conduct

Case Title: Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Gubbala Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors. (and connected matter)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 167

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recalled an order disposing of two writ petitions relating to a valuable piece of land in Kakinada and has directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to inquire into the allegations of the order being obtained by playing "fraud" on the court. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N allowed the review petitions filed by Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association, recalling the common order that had disposed of two writ petitions concerning a dispute over land earmarked as open space in a residential layout.

Landless Poor Person Who Bought Assigned Land Before 1977 Act Can Sell It Further: AP High Court Full Bench

Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. D. Venugopal & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 168

Clarifying the scope of Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the High Court has held that a landless poor person who purchased assigned land in good faith and for valuable consideration before the Act came into force acquires full title to the land, including the right to further alienate it.

Emphasising the effect of Section 3(5), the majority held that once its statutory conditions are fulfilled, the land is taken outside the purview of the Act. Consequently, it ceases to be "assigned land" and no longer attracts the prohibition on transfer under Section 3.

A Full Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Justice T.C.D. Sekhar and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati answered a reference arising from a writ appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

AP High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation, Says Depreciation Can't Be Deducted On New Spare Parts Used In Repairs

Case Title: G. Jayarami Reddy v. A.V.N. Muralimohan & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while assessing compensation for damage to a vehicle in a motor accident claim, depreciation should not be deducted during calcuation where new spare parts are necessarily used to restore the vehicle to a roadworthy condition.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that the owner of the damaged vehicle is also entitled to compensation for incidental loss of income suffered during the period the vehicle remained under repair.

Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the MACT from Rs. 41,400 to Rs. 1,21,266, comprising Rs. 1,06,266 towards repair expenses and Rs.15,000 towards the loss arising from the inability to use the vehicle for one month. 

S.397(2) CrPC | Order Refusing Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage Is Interlocutory, Revision Not Maintainable: AP High Court

Case Title: Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a criminal revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order rejecting an application to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

The Court clarified that such an order does not determine the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Dismissing the criminal revision petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum.

The Bench observed:

“In the present case, the order under challenge pertains to the dismissal of an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. Such an order is purely interlocutory in nature and does not determine or affect any substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. squarely applies, which unequivocally provides that no revision shall lie against an interlocutory order.”

Unregistered Sale Agreement Delivering Possession Can't Be Marked As Evidence Without Payment Of Stamp Duty: AP High Court

Case Title: Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama Devi 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an agreement of sale specifically recites delivery of possession, the document attracts stamp duty and penalty, and cannot be received in evidence unless it is duly stamped.

Dismissing a Civil Revision Petition, Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda upheld the trial court's order refusing to mark an unregistered agreement of sale-cum-possession as an exhibit in a suit for specific performance. 

The court observed:

"But in the case on hand, the instrument is named as “agreement of salecum-possession”. Much less, the plaintiff/petitioner also pleaded that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property not only in the plaint but also in his chief evidence affidavit before the Court at trial. Therefore, since there is a specific recital with regard to delivery of the possession of the property under an agreement of sale, the levy of stamp duty and penalty is always in relation to the description of the document and levy cannot depend upon the pleadings of the parties. 

The levy of the stamp duty and penalty is always in relation to the document which is to be marked before the Court and such levy cannot depend upon the pleadings of the parties. Unless the document is sufficiently stamped it cannot be marked even for collateral purpose."

AP High Court Asks Endowments Department To Decide Representation For Temple Trustee Post After Hearing Applicant

Case Title: Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Endowment Department to decide a representation seeking appointment as a member of a Temple Trust Board after affording the applicant a sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Disposing of a writ petition, Justice Kiranmayee Mandava issued directions to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, to consider the petitioner's pending representation.

The Court observed:

"Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

Failure To Place Relevant Material Before District Magistrate Vitiates Preventive Detention Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after observing the relevant material was not placed before the District Magistrate while passing the detention order.

Holding that such non-consideration vitiates the detention, the Court set aside both the detention order and the Government's confirmation order, while leaving it open to the authorities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Allowing a habeas corpus petition, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi directed the immediate release of the detenu, if he was not required in any other case.

The Court observed:

"The Detenu shall be set at liberty immediately, if he is not required in any other case. Since, we have set aside the order on the ground of non-consideration of the relevant material which was not brought to the notice of the District Collector, we provide that the respondent-District Collector shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. However, in case any order of detention has to be passed afresh, the period of detention shall not exceed in total 12 months including the period already served pursuant to the impugned detention orders."

Deceased's Car Hitting Offending Vehicle From Behind Not Contributory Negligence In Absence Of Evidence: AP High Court

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174

Enhancing a motor accident award, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that deceased's car dashing into the offending vehicle from behind is not enough for Insurance Company to claim contributory negligence in absence of rebuttal evidence particularly of the offending vehicle's driver.

Dismissing an appeal filed by the insurer, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased marine engineer from Rs. 41.10 lakh to Rs. 62.77 lakh after finding that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted one-third towards personal expenses, failed to award future prospects, and applied an incorrect multiplier.

Retrospective Change In Probation Date Can't Be Used To Alter Settled Seniority, Violates Service Rules & Natural Justice: AP High Court

Case Title: Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee's seniority has attained finality after rendering long years of service, the authorities cannot revise it by changing the date of probation after a long lapse of time.

The Court further held that such action, taken without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, is hit by the principles of natural justice and violates the applicable service rules.

Allowing a writ petition filed by a Senior Assistant of a temple, Justice Balaji Medamalli set aside the revised seniority list that retrospectively changed the petitioner's date of probation, resulting in his juniors being promoted ahead of him and recovery proceedings being initiated against him.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 'Stale' Grounds, Ignored Bail Orders

Case Title: Ponna Roja v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 176

Reiterating that preventive detention is an exceptional measure, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that it cannot be invoked on the basis of stale criminal cases that have lost their "live and proximate link" with the need for detention.

The Court also held that where the detenu has already been granted bail in the criminal cases forming the basis of the detention order, the detaining authority must consider those bail orders, as their non-consideration vitiates the authority's subjective satisfaction.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi quashed the detention order and the State Government's confirmation order and directed detenu's release if he was not required in any other case.

'Can't Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings': AP High Court Sets Aside Status Quo Order On Mutation Entries, Says No Such Prayer Was Made

Case Title: V. Chandrasekhar Naidu v. E. Muneendra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 177

Granting partial relief in a land dispute, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a court cannot grant relief beyond the pleadings by directing parties to maintain status quo regarding mutation entries when no such relief has been sought in the writ petition.

The Court, however, reiterated that no person can be dispossessed except by following due process of law.

Allowing the writ appeal in part, the Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta set aside the Single Judge's direction directing maintenance of status quo over mutation entries in the revenue records.

Regularisation Of Compassionate Appointee Must Be From Date Of Acquiring Qualification, Not Initial Appointment: AP High Court

Case Title: R. Thimmappa v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors. and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 178

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the revision of the date of regularisation of a Junior Assistant appointed on compassionate grounds, holding that an employee who did not possess the prescribed educational qualification on the date of appointment cannot claim regularisation from the date of initial appointment.

In doing so, the Court noted that regularisation can only take effect from the date on which the employee acquires the requisite qualification.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Nyapathy Vijay in a batch of two writ petitions. While the first petition challenged the revision of the petitioner's date of regularisation, the second sought consideration of his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant.

The Court observed:

"The appointment of Petitioner as Junior Assistant is on compassionate grounds on condition and as the Petitioner acquired degree qualification on 10.12.2019, the service of the Petitioner was regularized with effect from that date. The contention of the Petitioner that the service of the Petitioner is to be regularized from the date of initial appointment i.e. 07.11.2017 is to be accepted, that would amount to validating of appointment of Petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant without having requisite educational qualification. The same would be contrary to the Rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India. It is too well known that educational qualification to a post is an absolute requirement and no appointment can be validated without the said qualification."

Habeas Corpus Plea Can't Be Used To Enforce Ex-Parte Custody Order Obtained Without Notice To Mother: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 179

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to enforce an ex parte custody order, after noting that the custody decree had been obtained without notice to the mother after the father furnished his own address as the mother's address instead of disclosing her actual address.

The Court further held that where a statutory remedy for enforcement is available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into that of an executing court.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the father's habeas corpus petition seeking implementation of an ex parte custody order in his favour. 

The Court observed:

“In the facts of the present case, the writ of Habeas Corpus deserves not to be issued based on the order dated 05.06.2025. That very order has been obtained by not furnishing correct address of the respondent No.4 resulting into an order of custody in favour of petitioner behind the back of the respondent No.4. 

The basis of the writ petition is an ex parte order against respondent No.4. It is so evident from the order itself. The respondent No.4-mother has already applied for setting aside that order of custody and the application is pending. So, at this stage, the order of dated 05.06.2025 has not attained finality. From the material on record, we are of the considered view that not only the order of custody is an ex parte order but without notice to the respondent No.4.”

Employees Can't Suffer For Employer's Record-Keeping Lapses: AP High Court Directs EPFO To Reconsider Retirees' Plea For Higher Pension

Case Title: Siddineni Venkateswara Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 180

Granting relief to retired employees seeking higher pension, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot reject claims under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 solely for non-production of Form 6A, challans or other employer records, particularly in respect of periods prior to 2010.

The Court observed that employees cannot be made to suffer for lapses in employer record-keeping or deficiencies in the EPFO's own records.

Disposing of the writ petition, Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda remanded the petitioners' applications to the EPFO for fresh consideration and directed the authorities to verify all available records instead of rejecting the claims on technical grounds.

Unexplained Delay In Deciding Detenu's Plea For Release Renders Continued Detention Illegal: AP High Court

Case Title: Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 181 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after holding that the continued detention of the detenu became illegal due to the State Government's unexplained delay in deciding his representation for release.

In doing so the court said that any unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering a representation violates the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by the detenu's wife challenging his preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

AP High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Despite Invalidity Of One Ground, Cites Severability Clause U/S 6 PIT-NDPS Act

Case Title: Dunga Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182

Relying on the severability clause under Section 6 of thePrevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT NDPS) Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition holding that failure to satisfy the mandatory triple-test in respect of one of six grounds of detention does not invalidate the detention order as a whole. 

The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta in a writ petition filed by the wife of the detenu seeking his release from preventive detention.

The Court observed:

"In the present case, the impugned Order of Detention has been passed on six grounds i.e., two or more grounds. Such Order of Detention shall be deemed to have been passed separately on each of such grounds from Ground Nos.1 to 6. So, even if it be taken that the Order cannot be sustained on Ground No.6, for non-consideration of three requirements with respect to the detenu being in judicial custody, it cannot be held that the detaining authority had not satisfied on the other grounds, only because of no satisfaction recorded relating to Ground No.6. It shall be deemed that the State Government or the detaining authority had made the Order of Detention after being satisfied on the remaining grounds.

Order of Detention shall not be deemed to be invalid for the remaining grounds and it shall be deemed that the Order of Detention has been made under Section 3 (1) of PIT NDPS Act 1988 after being satisfied with reference to the remaining 5 grounds." 

AP High Court Invokes Teachings From Hinduism, Christianity & Islam To Reinforce Protection Of Water Bodies, Halts Sand Excavation From Pond

Case Title: Boddusatyavathi and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 183

Invoking teachings from Hinduism, Christianity, Islam which recognize water as a "common heritage" reflecting the essence of Public Trust Doctrine, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed District Collector's proceedings permitting excavation of sand and gravel from a village pond for National Highway construction.

The Court held that excavation of minor minerals cannot be permitted by bypassing the statutory procedure prescribed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in a writ petition filed by four farmers of Kothapalem Village, Vizianagaram District, who depended on the Kannamnaidu Water Pond for irrigation.

'Right To Electricity Part Of Article 21': AP High Court Quashes Permanent Rejection Of Mill's Application For Power Connection

Case Title: Kadagala Srinivas Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 184

Holding that the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the permanent rejection of a flour mill owner's application for a new electricity connection and directed the distribution licensee to process it as per the Electricity Act provisions.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in a writ petition filed by a resident of Parampeta Village, Vizianagaram District, who intended to establish a small flour mill to earn his livelihood.

The Court observed:

"...it is crystal clear that the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and if there is any violation of the same, it affects the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the Constitution of India. In view of the significance & importance attached to electricity as detailed above, right from the Vedic period till the present 32 contemptuous generation i.e., Gen-Z and Alpha., the usage of electricity in multiple dimensions basic fundamental thing for minute to minute work"

Advisory Board's Opinion Not Condition Precedent For Arrest Pursuant To Preventive Detention Order: AP High Court

Case Title: Smt. Sivakumar Meenakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 185

Obtaining an Advisory Board's opinion is not a condition precedent for arresting/detaining a person pursuant to a prevention detention order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held while clarifying that the Board's report is required for the State Government to decide whether to confirm or revoke the detention order.

The Division Bench presided over by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta delivered the judgment. The court observed:

“The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the order of the detaining authority, the arrest cannot be made immediately and it should be only after the opinion of the Advisory Board. For such submission, neither any provision has been placed before us nor any authority of law. 

None of the provisions make the report of the Advisory Board, a condition precedent for making arrest of the detenu with respect to whom the order of detention has been passed or to be detained pursuant to the order of detention. The report of the Advisory Board, is must for the State Government to consider the confirmation of the order of detention, or to release depending on the report of the Advisory Board.”

Application Of BUDS Act Prima Facie Doubtful Where Accused Is Not Deposit Taker: AP High Court

Case Title: Dr Rayagada Santosh Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 186

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the application of offences under Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 is prima facie doubtful where the accused is not a deposit taker. 

Granting relief to the doctor who claimed to be himself a victim of the alleged cheating, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed:

“So far as allegations in respect of the BUDS Act, 2019 is concerned, as rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, applicability of the said provisions are in question, more particularly, in view of the specific language enunciated under Section 3(b) of the said Act, i.e., the petitioner will not come under the purview of Deposit Taker.

Another facet in the instant case is accepting the entire accusation, except the offence punishable under Section 21(1)(2)(3) of the BUDS Act, all the offences are punishable with imprisonment upto seven (07) years. Prima facie there is any amount of ambiguity as to whether Section 21(1)(2)(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 would attract to the subject crime or not. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein/Accused No.1 on certain condition.” 

Ruling Party Lodging Criminal Cases Against Opposition Leaders A 'Disturbing Feature' Of Indian Politics: AP High Court

Case Title: Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 12871 of 2025

Granting interim relief to an M.S. General Surgery student with 78% locomotor disability, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Andhra Medical College to issue provisional course completion certificate and release the original academic documents to enable him to participate in the NEET Super Specialty counselling, earlier denied over lack of attendance. 

While doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad also suo motu impleaded the concerned Professor of General Surgery, who allegedly harassed the petitioner on account of his disability, by repeatedly seeking medical fitness examinations and pressuring him to discontinue the course.

Appeal Not Maintainable Against Order Closing Contempt Case On Recording Compliance: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Kasi Raju, S/o Kava Raju (Died) & 19 Others v. Arun Kumar & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 188

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.

In doing so, the Court held that an order closing contempt proceedings after recording compliance with the writ court's directions cannot be challenged under Section 19 of the Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

“A bare perusal of Section 19(1) of the Act, 1971, shows that the appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Clause (a) provides that where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, appeal lies to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court.

The expression used in Section 19(1) of the Act,1971 is in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, which is most relevant in determining the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Act...

The order under challenge is not one imposing punishment upon the respondents in the contempt proceedings. It is an order closing the contempt case recording that the orders passed in writ petition No.937 of 2023 dated 10.07.2024-have been complied with. We are of the considered view that an appeal would not lie under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the order under challenge"

AP High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Samsung Over Non-Declaration Of Mobile Phone Dimensions Under Legal Metrology Rules

Case Title: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 189

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mobile phone manufacturers need not declare the dimensions of their devices on the package unless the size of the commodity is “relevant” under Rule 6(1)(f) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti examined whether the dimensions of a mobile phone were required to be declared under Rule 6(1)(f) and held that the requirement is not absolute. The Court observed:

“A perusal of the provisions extracted supra, while Section 18 mandates only those declarations as may be prescribed, Rule 4 requires that every pre-packed commodity leaving the manufacturer‟s premises must bear the prescribed declaration. Rule 6(1)(f) outlines where the sizes of the commodity contained in the package are relevant. 

A conjoint reading of the provisions referred to supra demonstrates that the obligation to declare the dimensions is not an absolute statutory requirement. The requirement arises only where the size of the commodity is relevant.”

AP High Court Sets Aside Gift Deed Restoration Order As Subsequent Transferees Were Not Heard

Case Title: Savari Eswaramma v. Parigala Anjinamma & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 190

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge order that had restored a registered gift deed, ruling that writ proceedings cannot adversely affect the rights of third-party purchasers without impleading them and giving them an opportunity of hearing.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed:

“We are of the considered view that, in view of the pendency of the suit between the parties i.e., the writ petitioner(daughter)(plaintiff) and the writ appellant (mother)(defendant No.1), along with subsequent transferees (defendant Nos.2 to 5) from the mother (defendant No.1) and the said material aspect not having been disclosed in the writ petition, and those defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in the suit having no opportunity of hearing in the writ petition, as they were not impleaded, but are being adversely affected behind their back, the impugned judgment cannot be maintained.”

Pendency Of Civil Suit Does Not Bar Mutation Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 191

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the mere pendency of a civil suit relating to title does not bar revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers to conduct mutation proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

In doing so, the Court clarified that while the Civil Court's declaration of title would ultimately govern the revenue entries, a pending title suit by itself does not prevent revenue authorities from exercising jurisdiction under the 1971 Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed:

“We are of the view that the pendency of a civil suit does not operate as a bar to proceedings under the Act, 1971. If any person has a bona fide dispute regarding title to the property, it is always open to such person to seek appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court; however, the pendency of the suit proceedings, by itself, does not prohibit the revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers and jurisdictions under the Act, 1971.”

Accused's Right To Silence Can't Be Stretched To Avoid Investigation, But Police Cannot Resort To Endless Summoning: AP High Court

Case Title: Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 192

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused's right to remain silent during interrogation is a substantive constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, but it does not absolve the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in an investigation when lawfully called upon to do so. 

A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao examined the scope of the accused's right to silence and the power of the Investigating Officer to require his appearance during investigation. The Court observed:

“The right to silence, therefore, cannot be stretched to the extent of absolving the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in the investigative process when lawfully called upon to do so. There exists a fine but discernible distinction between the right not to incriminate oneself and the duty to appear, when required, before the Investigating Officer for the purposes of identification, clarification, or confrontation with material already gathered. The former is inviolable, the latter is a reasonable regulatory requirement necessary for the investigation to reach its logical culmination.”

Andhra Pradesh Goondas Act | 12-Day Period For Govt Approval Begins After Detention Order Is Passed: High Court

Case Title: Chintapalli Satyavati v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 193

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the 12-day period for approval of a preventive detention order under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers, 1986, begins from the day after the detention order is made, thereby excluding the date of the order from computation.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi delivered the judgment. The Court observed:

“The language of Section 3(3) is very clear. The order shall not remain in force if it is not approved within the period of 12 days after the making of the order of detention. The expression 'after the making thereof', indicates that the period of 12 days is to be counted after the passing of the order of detention. So, it is clear that the date of the order of detention is to be excluded.

In the present case, the order of detention was passed on 19.09.2025. When counted from 20.09.2025, the order of approval is within the period of 12 days under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1986. The order of approval was therefore passed within 12 days. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that the detenue is entitled to be released under Section 3(3) as the order of approval was passed after 12 days cannot be accepted and is rejected.”

District Collector Can't Challenge Govt Order, Bound By State's Hierarchical Decision: AP High Court

Case Title: Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 194

Dismissing pleas by Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) and the District Collector challenging a GO granting ryotwari patta rights, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the District Collector designated by government to perform statutory duties, cannot file a writ petition against the Government's own revisional order.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed, while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in Roop Chand vs State of Punjab:

“An Officer designated by the Government to perform statutory duties cannot file a writ petition to challenge the Government's own orders, as the Officer is fundamentally bound by the State's hierarchical decision. This is clearly impermissible in law besides being an antithesis to the 'doctrine of finality' in view of the judgment referred to supra”

The Court said that “delegate” means little more than an agent, adding that an agent does not exercise personal powers, but rather acts on behalf of the principal.

Witness Attesting Allegedly Fraudulent Document Not Criminally Liable Without Specific Allegations: AP High Court

Case Title: Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere attestation of an allegedly fraudulent document, without any specific allegation attributing an active role to the attesting witnesses in the alleged offence, cannot by itself make them criminally liable.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed:

“As could be seen, the Courts have consistently held that the attesters cannot be held liable for merely attesting the documents. 

After hearing both the parties, this Court accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither in the F.I.R nor in the charge sheet, which is filed after a complete investigation, except bald allegations that the petitioners stood as attesters to the document No.2820/2012, dated 23.04.2012, nothing else is stated and the allegations are omnibus and does not constitute any offence.”

“As per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9.”

Appeal Against Reference Court Decree Under Land Acquisition Act Does Not Lie Under Section 96 CPC: AP High Court

Case Title: P. Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal against a decree passed by the Reference Court in proceedings under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable only under Section 54 of the Act and not under Section 96 CPC. 

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta in a Land Acquisition Appeal where the maintainability of the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act arose for consideration, following a Section 30 reference made by the Special Deputy Collector.

The Court observed:

"Insofar as an award or any part of an award made in proceedings under the L.A. Act is concerned, the Legislature has specifically provided the remedy under Sections 18 and 30 of the L.A. Act. Had it been the intention of the Legislature that decrees passed by the Reference Court under Section 30 should be appealable under Section 96 of C.P.C., there would have been no necessity to enact a special appellate provision under Section 54 of the L.A. Act. The very incorporation of Section 54 demonstrates the legislative intent that appeals arising from adjudications made in proceedings under the Act should be governed exclusively by the special provision.

AP High Court Fines Mother ₹50,000 For Suppressing Grant Of Custody To Father Pursuant To Mutual Settlement

Case Title: In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 197

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of minor children is not maintainable where the children are in the custody of their father pursuant to a mutually agreed settlement between the parents. 

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi dismissed with costs the mother's petition seeking production and restoration of custody of her two minor children. The Court found that the parents had agreed under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the children would remain in the father's custody.

The Court observed:

“Once it was agreed mutually between the petitioner and the R5 that the custody of the children shall remain solely with the husband, the children cannot be said to be in any illegal custody of the R5-father. 

The representation was made without disclosing the aforesaid settlement; Memorandum of Understanding and the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Crl.P.No.9564 of 2025 by the High Court for the State of Telangana, in which the Memorandum of Understanding was made as part of the order. The Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has misused the process of this Court by suppression of the material facts.”

Govt Can't Alter Merit List Recommended By Selection Committee, Appoint Consumer Commission President Of Its Choice: AP High Court

Case Title: Rayala Kiran Kumar vs Union of India & others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 198

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an order appointing President of Vijayawada's District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that the State Government cannot independently alter the order of merit or appoint a candidate of its choice by overlooking the recommendations of the Selection Committee.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli held that under Rule 6(11) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, the State Government's role is confined to verifying the credentials and antecedents of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, and does not extend to altering the order of merit.

Mere 'Reading Out' Grounds Of Arrest To Accused Only During Production Before Trial Court Violates Article 22(1) Mandate: AP High Court

Case Title: Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. with connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 199

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that merely reading out the remand report, case record, order of arrest and grounds of arrest to an accused at the time of production before the Special Judge does not amount to sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). 

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela examined whether the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest had been complied with. The Court observed:

“From the above observations of the learned Special Judge, this Court construes that the arrest of the petitioner/accused No.4, was made only at 04:20 P.M. in the Court and the accused No.4 received the copies of the case record and was informed about the grounds of arrest, which cannot be understood as legitimate and in consonance with the law of the land.

In view of the above precedents, which are constitutional guardrails, it can be held, without any hesitation that the order of the Special Judge that the detailed remand report/case record, the order of arrest, and the grounds of arrest contained in the remand order were read over to the petitioner does not amount to sufficient compliance and it totally violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which attains high constitutional and legal significance.”

No Direct Evidence Of Murder Needed When Kidnapping, Last Seen & Swift Recovery Of Body Form Complete Chain: AP High Court

Case Title: Tirumanuyam Srinivasulu Reddy @ Srunivasulu & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 200

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where the time between the kidnapping of a minor girl and recovery of her dead body was short, the prosecution could not be expected to produce direct evidence of the actual commission of murder.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunarajan dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

The Court noted that the accused had offered no explanation for what happened to the deceased after she was last seen in their company. Referring to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the High Court observed:

“Once the prosecution established that the deceased was last seen alive in the exclusive company of both the accused, the burden shifted on them, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to explain the circumstances in which they parted company with the deceased or as to what subsequently happened to the kidnapped minor girl.

Thus, the prosecution has established that both the accused kidnapped the deceased, that the deceased was last seen alive in their exclusive company, that both the accused were apprehended by P.W.18 near the scene of offence on 22.12.2014, that the dead body of the deceased and the incriminating material objects were recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements, and that neither of the accused offered any explanation regarding the fate of the deceased, though the relevant facts were especially within their knowledge.”

SC/ST Act | Eyewitness To Caste Abuse Must Be Independent And Impartial: AP High Court

Case Title: Y. Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 201

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while examining an allegation of caste-based abuse under the SC/ST Act, the requirement of “public view” must be considered in the context of whether the alleged eyewitnesses were independent and impartial. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy examined the circumstances surrounding the complaint, including the antecedents of the three persons cited by the complainant as eyewitnesses and the requirement of “public view” under the SC/ST Act.

The Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against a Sub-Inspector and a Constable arising from a Head Constable's complaint alleging caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation.

AP High Court Upholds Attempt To Murder Conviction, Says Simple Injuries By Itself Does Not Negate Offence If Intention Proved

Case Title: Setty Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 202

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the nature of injuries sustained by a victim cannot, by itself, determine whether an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC is made out, particularly when the manner of assault and the weapon used establishes the requisite intention or knowledge that death was likely to be caused.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the accused and confirmed the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court.

The Court observed:

“Let me understand whether the petitioner had no intention to cause death of P.W.2. The fact suggests that the petitioner attacked P.W.2 with knife and inflicted eleven blows on his neck, which is undoubtedly a vital part of the human body. Causing one or two blows at the neck of a person itself is sufficient to cause death of that person. 

In this particular case, at the time of causing blow, the victim has managed to save himself from the blow and petitioner, which resulted the petitioner to cause further more blow; by that way, eleven blows are there. There is no explanation from the defence side, why eleven numbers of blow of knife was caused on the neck of P.W.2 in an sudden provocation. Thus, the argument lack of intention of petitioner to kill P.W.2 is not justified.”

Identity, Homicidal Death Established After Body Exhumed From Tomb, But Circumstantial Chain Incomplete: AP High Court Acquits Four

Case Title: Boya Hothuru Alliswamy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 203

The Andhra Pradesh High Court while ordering acquittal in a murder case observed that although the identity of the deceased and the homicidal nature of her death stood established after her body was exhumed from a tomb, the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances connecting the accused with the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court accordingly acquitted four accused who had been convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 62-year-old woman.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court. It observed:

“P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased deposed that she identified all the belongings of her mother at the time of exhumation viz. Saree, blouse, petticoat, slippers, gold colour dollar having face of Lord Venkateswara, a cut piece of gold colour chain and a pair of sky blue colour chappals in the presence of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the other witnesses etc. Therefore, the identity of the deceased and nature of death of the deceased being homicidal are clear. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge to that extent are fit for concurrence.” 

JJ Act | AP High Court Orders Release Of Minor Produced Before Magistrate As Adult, Imposes ₹10,000 Cost On SHO

Case Title: Veligatla Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 204

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to the rescue of a minor boy who was allegedly treated as an adult by the police and produced before a regular Magistrate, directing his immediate release from judicial custody and holding that the remand order was illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction.

In doing so it imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on the SHO of the concerned police station.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by father of the minor 17-year-old boy, challenging the arrest and remand of his minor son, in connection with a criminal case.

The Court noted:

“While it is the duty of the respondent-police officials to verify the exact date of birth of the petitioner's son with reference to the material obtained by them, this Court, is at loss to understand as to how the date of birth, which is even otherwise clearly visible from the material filed before this Court along with the writ petition was found to be not clear to concerned police. Even the learned Junior Civil Judge (FAC) is expected to bestow attention while passing order of remand.” 

Declaration Of Title In Immovable Property Suits Governed By Article 65 Limitation Act, Not Article 58: AP High Court

Case Title: Bethala Jaya Raju (Died) & Ors. v. Bethala Manikyal Rao

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 205

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a claim for declaration of title concerning immovable property is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, and not the three-year limitation period under Article 58, where the suit is not one seeking declaration simpliciter.

In doing so, the Court upheld the order permitting the plaintiff to amend a pending suit concerning immovable property to incorporate a prayer for declaration of title, holding that the proposed amendment was not barred by limitation merely because it was sought after seven years.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the defendants, finding no illegality or irregularity in the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment.

The Court observed:

“Thus, a conspectus of the authorities referred to supra, in a suit relating to immovable property, Part V of the Limitation Act would apply, viz, Article 65 but not Article 58. In the case at hand, the suit was initially filed seeking a perpetual injunction in respect of immovable property. Pending the suit, after seven years, the interlocutory application was filed seeking amendment, one for declaration, and as the same is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Article 58 of the Act does not apply. In such a scenario, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation merits no consideration and falls to the ground.”

AP High Court Acquits Husband In Dowry Harassment & Cruelty Case Citing Sister's Acquittal Based On Same Evidence

Case Title: X v. Y 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 206

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a husband in a dowry harassment and cruelty case, holding that his conviction could not be sustained on the same evidence on which his sister who was facing identical allegations was acquitted.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

“It appears that the prosecution case was initiated on the basis of the report of de facto complainant, wherein A.1 and A.2 were both arrayed as main perpetrators of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It was specifically alleged that A.1, at the instigation of A.2, subjected the petitioner to mental cruelty and demanded dowry.

'Prima Facie Case Made Out': AP High Court Refuses To Quash Perjury, Cheating Case Against Retired Bank Manager Over ₹50 Lakh Debt Dispute

Case Title: G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 207

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute over Rs. 50 lakh borrowed by a retired bank manager and his wife against a promissory note and mortgage of three title deeds. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 207]

The Court made the observation while refusing to quash criminal proceedings arising from a complaint alleging perjury, filing of a false case, cheating and fraudulent prevention of recovery of debt.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the petition filed by the retired bank manager and his father-in-law. They were accused, along with the bank manager's wife, of colluding to file a false case to delay the cheque dishonour proceedings initiated by the complainant's mother.

Contractors Can't Claim Interest On Delayed Payments After Failing To Challenge Earlier Orders: AP High Court

Case Title: Yellaboina Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. with connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 208

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has barred contractors who executed works under the Andhra Pradesh Government-led water-conservation programme, the Neeru-Chettu Scheme, from reopening claims for interest on delayed contractual payments through fresh writ petitions. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 208]

The Court noted that, in the earlier writ proceedings, the petitioners were denied interest but were given liberty to pursue the claim before the appropriate forum. They neither challenged those orders nor availed the remedy indicated. Instead, they filed fresh writ petitions before the High Court seeking interest.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti was dealing with a batch of ten writ petitions filed by contractors seeking interest at 6% per annum on the amounts allegedly paid to them after delay. 

The Court examined the contractual terms, noting that the agreements incorporated the Andhra Pradesh Standard Specifications (APSS). Clause 69 of the APSS barred contractors from claiming interest on payments in arrears or amounts due upon final settlement. The agreements also provided specific mechanisms for dispute resolution.

'Suppression Of Material Fact': AP High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Plea Challenging Govt Hospital Diet Tender

Case Title: Sri Venkateshwara Association v. The State of A.P. and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 209

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that interference by Courts in tender matters has to be minimal, while upholding the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the selection of successful bidders for a diet-supply contract at Government General Hospital, Ongole.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya dismissed the writ appeal, finding that the appellant had suppressed the filing of an earlier writ petition concerning the same tender process which was dismissed, a material fact that ought to have been disclosed.

The Court observed:

“In the given factual matrix, learned Single Bench correctly held that there is suppression of material fact by writ petitioner. We do not find any merit in the plea raised by learned counsel for appellant/writ petitioner that non-disclosure of Writ Petition No.27573 of 2025 is not material and pertains to a separate cause of action. It may be that writ petitioner in the said petition was seeking extension of earlier contract in its favor, however, fact remains that said writ petition was actuated by floating of subsequent tender dated 23.09.2025, and that writ petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings subsequent to the said tender. It is indeed a material fact, which should have been mentioned in the present proceedings.

It is further to be noted at this stage that on earlier occasion, such a course of action had duly been adopted and was never objected to by writ petitioner, who had in fact benefited from the same. Though the writ petition could have been dismissed merely on the ground of suppression of facts, learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe that procedure adopted cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary and especially keeping in view that there was consent of majority of the qualified bidders. It is correctly held by learned Single Bench that interference of Courts in tender matters has to be minimal.”

Sympathy For Govt Employee Facing Grave Corruption Allegations Will Impair Morality In Department: AP High Court Rejects Promotion Plea

Case Title: G. Papa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 210

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee facing grave allegations of corruption and a pending criminal prosecution cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, and that sympathy for such an employee would seriously impair the morality in the department.

In doing so, the Court refused to direct consideration of a Deputy Director of Mines and Geology for promotion to the post of Joint Director, who had challenged the authorities' decision not to include him in the promotion panel despite being at Sl.No.2 in the seniority list.

Emphasising that an employee facing serious allegations cannot be treated on par with employees having clean and unblemished service records, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed:

“One-dimensional sympathy for the employee facing grave allegations of corruption, embezzlement of public money etc., would seriously impair the morality in the department. An employee facing serious allegations of bribery cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. In the opinion of this Court, the promotion of individuals facing grave charges will have a demoralising effect on honest persons working in the department and normalise wrongful acts.

The directions to consider individuals facing serious allegations for promotion would only open another avenue to pursue promotion under the cover "consider" orders and such an avenue should be nipped in the bud. The usual plea of delay in conclusion is of no avail in cases of this nature as there would be inevitable delay in conclusion of criminal cases on account of various dynamics and strategies employed at the trial and there is no magic wand in the hands of anybody to ensure expeditious conclusion.”

Mere Participation In Protest Not Offence: AP High Court Quashes Assault FIR Against YSR Congress Leaders During Political Rally

Case Title: Devineni Avinash & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 211

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed FIR against political leaders Yuvajana Sramika Rythu (YSR) Congress Party leaders Devineni Avinash, former MLA Monditoka Jagan Mohana Rao and MLC Monditoka Aruna Kumar over allegations of assault, organizing unlawful assembly, obstructing public servants during “Annadata Poru” rally.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao was dealing with pleas seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from the “Annadata Poru” rally.

The Court underpinned that the mere mention of penal sections without corresponding factual assertions cannot sustain a criminal prosecution and therefore "mere participation in a political rally, without any allegation of assault or criminal force against a public servant, cannot ipso facto attract the rigours of Sections 132, 195(1), 189(3), 223, 285, 292 and 293 read with Section 190 BNS.

AP High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Appeal, Says Misplaced Certified Order Copy 'Not Sufficient Cause'

Case Title: P. Vanajamma v. P. Mahitha Reddy & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 212

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to condone a 110-day delay in an appeal against the dismissal of a suit seeking specific performance of a contract.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that the principle of adopting a “liberal approach” in condoning delay cannot override statutory limitation when the party is found negligent or lacking in due diligence. The Court noted:

“From the aforesaid paragraph, the cause taken is that certified copy of the judgment and decree, which was received was misplaced and then extra copy was asked and the same was provided on 18.09.2025. So that took time resulting into delay. We have seen the certified copy annexed to the memo of appeal that was applied on 10.04.2025 and became ready on 14.05.2025 and was received on 14.05.2025. There is no proof of getting another extra copy. In fact the same copy has been filed which was applied on 10.04.2025.

We find, the cause stated is not sufficient for the delay of 110 days. Consequently, the appellant not being diligent in filing the appeal, no case for condonation of delay is made out.”

Land Acquisition | Landowners Can't Suffer Because Govt Failed To Forward Plea For Enhanced Compensation To Civil Court: AP High Court

Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Rendla Subba Reddy & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 213

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that landowners who filed applications seeking reference to civil court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 Land Acquisition Act cannot be made to suffer for State's inaction in not registering the landowners application or tracing out the same.

In doing so, it dismissed appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against an order directing the authorities to refer landowners' claims for enhancement of compensation to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi held that the landowners could not be made to suffer merely because the authorities failed to register their application or subsequently failed to trace it in their records.

Illegal Mining: AP High Court Upholds State's Power To Impose Penalties Without Criminal Trial

Case Title: M/s. Anjani Stone Crusher v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others & connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 214

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the authority of departmental officials to levy monetary penalties, seigniorage fee and other charges for illegal mining, transportation and storage of minor minerals under Rules 26 and 34 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, without a criminal trial.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati considered, in a batch of writ petitions and appeals, whether monetary penalties under Rules 26 and 34 could be imposed by authorised departmental officers or only by a competent criminal court under the MMDR Act.

The Court observed:

“Power to impose penalty, seigniorage fee, market value of the mineral is clearly within the purview of the departmental official as specified. It is only the aspect of imposition of imprisonment if so stipulated by the department that necessary steps would have to be taken for filing of the complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction for necessary action. It is a settled position that Court should attempt to harmonize the provision in a given factual matrix by lending such interpretation that the provision itself does not become a dead letter or a useless one, rather it upholds the legislative intent to take necessary steps for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.”

Govt Employee Can't Seek Regularization Of Prolonged Absence As Medical Leave Without Filing Leave Application: AP High Court

Case Title: The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (RWS) Division, Chittoor District & Others v. B. Narasimha Raju

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 215

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which a government employee remained absent without submitting any leave application could not be treated as medical leave, and that he was not entitled to payment for that period.

In doing so, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta partly allowed a 2006 petition filed by the State authorities challenging an order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal directing regularisation of a government employee's prolonged absence from service. 

The Court observed:

“Thus, it is aptly clear that petitioner/applicant was absent from his duties since 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 without any leave application or without any reason of his medical illness. There are no reasons to believe that applicant was too ill to write a leave application in the entire period of absence. Thus, the learned Tribunal, while deciding such issue, has lost sight to look into the entire aspect to understand that the period from 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 cannot be treated as medical leave. We make it clear that since applicant was absent from his duties without any leave application or that, as he was not medically unfit at that period of time to write a letter of leave, thus, the period from 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 cannot be treated as medical leave. He is not entitled any payment for that period".

Absence Of Railway Ticket No Bar For Bona Fide Passenger To Claim Accident Compensation: AP High Court

Case Title: N. Sri Rama Prasad and another v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 216 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the absence of a railway ticket from a deceased passenger's belongings, by itself, does not mean that he was travelling without a ticket.

In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed an appeal filed by the parents of a deceased passenger and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing their compensation claim.

The Court awarded Rs. 8 lakh compensation to the parents under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 which provides for compensation in cases of “untoward incidents” involving railway passengers.

The Court observed:

“In the instant case, the claimants have placed the facts regarding the purchase of ticket by the father of the deceased, and the said fact was pleaded, as such, the department is required to rebut the same.

…learned counsel for the appellants submits that, once an affidavit is filed stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which shows that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by falling during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in train was not rebutted…”

Andhra Pradesh High Court Calls For Revision Of AP Advocates' Fee Rules, Says It Doesn't Reflect Prevailing Rates

Case Title: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vellanki Lakshmi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 217

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the advocate fee structure prescribed under the A.P. Advocates' Fee Rules, 2010 requires revision, noting that some of the prescribed fees have become outdated and have no correlation with prevailing rates.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alapati Giridhar made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against a motor accident compensation award.

In doing so, the Court also enhanced the compensation payable to the deceased's family from Rs. 7.10 lakh to Rs. 11.94 lakh and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on APSRTC, payable to the claimants.

Caste Certificate | Fresh Enquiry On Same Allegation Cannot Be Initiated Without Additional Material: AP High Court

Case Title: Smt. Thota Rajya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 218

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside orders cancelling a woman's Scheduled Tribe community certificate, finding that the authorities had failed to consider an earlier Vigilance enquiry confirming her community status.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N. allowed the writ petition filed by an employee of Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL). The Court said responsible employers should not entertain frivolous complaints, as they can cause undesirable consequences and trauma to employees.

The Court observed:

"The respondents could not have initiated a fresh enquiry as and when they received a complaint with regard to the community certificate of any employee. Once a comprehensive enquiry is completed and a finding is arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the same ought to be referred to for considering any further complaint against the said employee for initiating further action, if necessary, subject to the fresh complaint bringing on record any additional material which was ignored by the earlier Enquiry Officer.

On the facts of the present case, it is evident that there was no additional material submitted by the complainant with regard to suppression of any material by the petitioner or any additional material which required a re-enquiry into the community certificate of the petitioner. The enquiry appears to have been initiated on a complaint received from a third party on the same allegation that the petitioner had submitted a false community certificate and secured employment in the 6th respondent. Such complaints could not have been entertained by the respondent as a responsible employer in the State. Frivolous complaints against employees ought not to be entertained by the employer, as they result in undesirable consequences and cause trauma to the employee."

Mother Can't Be Denied Family Member Certificate Merely Because Deceased Son Was Married: AP High Court

Case Title: Mandula Khasim Bi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 219

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the Tahsildar's rejection of a mother's application for a Family Member Certificate following the death of her government-employee son, holding that she could independently apply for the certificate even though he was married.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice B. S. Bhanumathi allowed the writ petition challenging the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar and directed him to follow the procedure and issue the certificate to the petitioner, along with other eligible family members. 

The Court observed:

"As the petitioner claims to be the nominee to the service benefits of her son, she might have applied for a family member certificate. Apart from being nominee, the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased government employee, even in the presence of wife or / and child / children of the deceased employee, is a legal heir and a family member. As such, the petitioner can apply for issuance of a family member certificate. After conducting an enquiry by following the above stated procedure, if at all, any other family member (s) is / are found to be entitled to such certificate, he / she / they may also be included in the certificate, along with the mother of the deceased employee, but she cannot be made to wait for issuance of the certificate till the wife chooses to seek a family member certificate..."

Bank Can Retain Jewellery Pledged Against Gold Loan To Recover Other Dues Where Party Is Co-Borrower: AP High Court

Case Title: Balagam Sri Vijaya Bhargavi v. Regional Manager, Union Bank of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 220

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a bank to retain 67.1 grams of gold ornaments pledged against a gold loan to recover outstanding dues under another loan, in which the petitioner was also a co-applicant along with main borrower.

In doing so, the Court dismissed a writ petition seeking return of the pledged ornaments. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati found that the petitioner had herself agreed to this arrangement under a Gold Loan Pledge Form.

Dental Masters Must Be Completed Within 6 Yrs; Mere Demand Draft Without Formal Request Letter Can't Secure Readmission: AP High Court

Case Title: Dr. U. Anudeep v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 221

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Demand Draft submitted by a Master of Dental Surgery (M.D.S.) student, without enclosing a formal “request letter”, could not be treated as a request for continuation of the course. 

Before Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjanwas a writ petition filed by a postgraduate dental student seeking to set aside the communication of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences rejecting his request to continue his M.D.S. course and to direct the University to permit him to pursue the course.

The Court observed:

“A perusal of writ affidavit and material on record reveals that while drawing Demand Draft dated 07.03.2023, petitioner did not enclose any formal “request letter”. Petitioner claims that he was not aware of the procedure to avail of an opportunity to continue with the P.G.Course, and thus had not addressed any letter enclosing Annexures 1 & 2, which could have been done only after respondent No.3 College apprised him. Argument as raised before us and noted in para 9 above, is in direct contradiction to specific pleadings. Respondent University, in its counter-affidavit, has specifically stated that no application was received prior to 27.06.2024.

Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that even if Demand Draft dated 07.03.2023 is considered as a request, which in effect is not possible, petitioner by no stretch of imagination can complete the course within a period of six years from the date of his admission. His eligibility qua attendance, etc., is also clearly deficient.”

Successive Habeas Corpus Plea Can't Reopen Grounds Already Available But Not Raised In Earlier Petition: AP High Court

Case Title: Bommali Ashajyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh &

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 222

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a second writ of habeas corpus challenging the same preventive detention order under Article 226 of the Constitution can be maintained only when there is a change in circumstances or a new ground becomes available after the earlier petition was decided. 

The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi in a writ petition filed by Bommali Ashajyothi seeking the release of her husband, Bommali Vamsi Krishna, from preventive detention.

The Court observed:

“...after the dismissal of the writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention, if the judgment of the High Court is not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has not been filed, then fresh writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be maintained in the High Court only if the circumstances have changed or if a new ground becomes available after the decision of the earlier writ petition after the decision of the earlier writ petition. Otherwise, the judgment in the previous writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be final, on the principle of finality attached, though it may not be on the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

in T.P.Moideen Koya (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex court clearly observed that “if a fresh petition under Article 32 was permitted on the ground that certain ground has not been dealt with in the judgment, a party can file as many petitions as he likes and take one or two new points every time.” The same may also be the situation in case of the successive Habeas Corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the same High Court.”

Minority School Need Not Follow Reservation Roster When Appointing Candidate From Same Minority Community: AP High Court

Case Title: M. Rajasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 223

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of approval for an Attender appointed by a Christian minority school, holding that the reservation roster did not apply to his appointment as he belonged to the same minority community as the institution.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Balaji Medamalli in a writ petition concerning the approval and regularisation of an Attender appointed by Church of South India (CSI) High School, a minority educational institution.

The Court observed:

"Upon perusal of the above rule, it is clear that the requirement of following the rule of reservation is exempted in respect of minority educational institutions where the management selects candidates belonging to the concerned minority community. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the Christian minority community and was appointed by a minority institution. Therefore, the said rule has no application, and the appointment of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of non-adherence to the roster meant for a BC-A (Woman) candidate."

Valid Prosecution Sanction For Corruption Case Can't Be Withdrawn In Absence Of New Material Warranting Review: AP High Court

Case Title: Metta Appana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 224

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a valid prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be withdrawn once it has been acted upon and criminal proceedings have commenced and that only fresh material can warrant such reconsideration.

The Court accordingly dismissed a challenge by a retired Executive Engineer in the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department to the revival of prosecution sanction against him in a disproportionate assets case under the 1988 Act.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli was dealing with a challenge to G.O.Rt. No. 763 dated October 3, 2024, by which the Government cancelled its earlier order withdrawing the prosecution sanction against the petitioner.

The Court observed:

“...once the criminal prosecution has been set in motion pursuant to a valid sanction, the authorities cannot withdraw the sanction by invoking their power of review in the absence of any new material warranting such reconsideration. In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that certain new material came to light after the grant of sanction or after filing of the charge sheet, which warranted withdrawal of the sanction. The recommendation for withdrawal was made on the basis of the same material that had already been considered while granting the sanction. The question as to whether the disproportionate assets of petitioner exceeded or were less than 20% of his known sources of income is a matter that can be considered by the competent criminal Court during the trial. Petitioner has an opportunity to raise all his contentions in this regard before the said Court. Therefore, the said issue cannot be made a ground for withdrawing the sanction after the criminal prosecution has already been set in motion.”

State Labour Court Can Entertain Industrial Dispute Involving Central Govt-Controlled Bank Employee: AP High Court

Case Title: Chennupalli Seetha v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 225

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a workman can approach a State Government-constituted Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the industrial dispute arises within the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.

In doing so, the Court set aside an order of the Labour Court, Guntur, which had refused to entertain the dispute on the ground that the Central Government was the appropriate Government for the bank and, therefore, the dispute ought to have been brought before a Labour Court constituted by the Central Government.

Accepting the maintainability of the petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli observed:

“... this Court is of the view that, since the dispute arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur, and having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the application filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the State Government is maintainable. Consequently, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 passed in Industrial Dispute No.24 of 2013 by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, and notified vide G.O.Rt.No. 118, dated 22.04.2021, issued by the Labour, Factories, Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (OP) Department, is set aside, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.”

Govt Employee's Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due To Marital Status: AP High Court

Case Title: B. Sobha and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Other

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter of a deceased Government employee cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marital status. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the daughter's candidature. 

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of UP (2026), the Court observed:

"Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations. The assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents…

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment and having regard to the judgment of this Court relied upon by the petitioners that married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee, this Court is of the considered opinion that 2nd petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, the impugned order of rejection dated 18.11.2023 is unsustainable."